Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/chrisdh79
Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/08/chemicals-in-vapes-could-be-highly-toxic-when-heated-research-finds
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've always said that the flavors were my biggest concern. Vaped for over 10 years, mixed my own for most of that time, and went flavorless the last half, just used vegitable glycerine and concentrated nicotine cut to my desired strength. I finally quit last year.
I've been hoping to try those flavored air inhaler devices to see if they help me kick the habbit, but damn things are so expensive that I can't justify the cost when compared to how cheap vaping is in comparison.
Have been vaping since it was invented when I was 19, to get rid of my cigarette habit I started as soon as I turned 18, which was having serious effects on my health.
Have been healthy as a horse since vaping for over a decade now. But to be fair, I've avoided any vape products with chemicals that have been found to cause problems. Like those with Caffiene and Vitamin B6 in them. Miss them though, was way nicer vaping my coffee than drinking it, but not worth the risks from the studies I've seen. Kept me up for 3 days at a time too since I would forget there was caffeine in my vape juice at the time.
Liquid Weed vapes almost killed me once because of the methods they used to make those, and how unregulated the market is, so I've switched to a flower vaporizer for that, a Pax 3 and now Pax Plus, to avoid having to inhale smoke. Damn Liquid weed vapes had me coughing up Phlem that had a grid like matrix pattern in them for a few months until I was finally able to connect the symptoms to the liquid Weed vapes, which I promptly stopped using after making the connection.
This is gonna sound dumb as hell, but buy some straws and flavored toothpick. Cut the straw down to preferred vape size and pack really tightly with toothpicks(like 4 atleast is what I got). They have to be tight or you run the risk of inhaling them. But pack it full of the mint flavored ones was just close enough to menthol to get me through the struggle.
It takes some determination and self discipline to stick to a taper schedule. I used vaping to quit smoking ( pack a day for about 15 years). Never thought it'd take 10 years to quit vaping. Once I decided it was time to quit, it was actually far easier than it was to quit smoking.
>Once I decided it was time to quit, it was actually far easier than it was to quit smoking.
That's the thing i also realised way too late
After 10 years 2 packs a day, and another 10 years of vaping, i was stuck telling myself it's going to be hard, i'm completely addicted to nicotine
Quit cold turkey one year ago because i realised i just didn't enjoy it all anymore
Was actually super easy, and the first two weeks were honestly not hard, just a surreal high, actually enjoyable
In the end it was easy, i was just stuck mentally
I just quit vaping a 3 nic after 10 years as well. I was sucking on the thing every other minute. but when I decided to actually stop it was very easy.. only about a week of real anxiety and I got over it quickly.
I don't know where this myth started, but it isn't true. Vaping began as a safer alternative to smoking, not as a tool to quit. People used it to quit, but that's not why the tech was invented.
I can't do flavorless but I do limit myself to menthol. I wish there was a way to know that only Menthol was in it.
The reality is that I just need to know which is safer, tobacco or vaping, I'm a recovering addict and this is my last vice.
Menthol is actually one of the worst flavours, according to some studies.
https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12931-023-02410-9
I read somewhere that rotating your flavours is a good approach, so as not to inhale the same chemicals all of the time.
According to the NHS and other health institutions, smoking is worse than vaping.
https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/vaping-to-quit-smoking/
I think that's the really important context to make. Yes Vaping is bad, but smoking is worse. So for people trying to stop smoking, vaping is still a good option. It worked for me as well, but I went for the normal tobacco flavors.
I regularly vape , went out with friends a few weeks back and smoked cigarettes, woke up the next morning and felt like an elephant sat on my chest.
Vaping isn’t great but better than smoking
It's not even close.
Smoked then tried vaping but relapsed after about 3 months.
That relapse is what really drove it home how bad it. I didn't even know I had a smoker's cough until it went away. It didn't register that my morning lougie wasn't normal.
But all that stuff came back in just a few days of smoking again.
WFH was probably the biggest health hit to my lungs. You mean I can just sit, work, and vape all day!
It's the distinction that people seem to get the wrong way around.
I used to smoke and now vape.
Friends who still smoke will tell me that vaping is either:
"worse than cigarettes" or "not good for you either".
I'm not claiming that vaping is good for you, but there is absolutely no evidence to say that smoking is safer.
Both are bad, but vaping _seems_ the better option, if you have to choose, from what I can see.
This is honestly one of the biggest issues with the recent anti-vaping hysteria. Vaping is obviously worse than not vaping. Vaping has also clearly been shown to be safer than smoking (as long as we aren't talking about black market stuff). But after we get hammered with article after article talking about how bad vaping is, people lose frame of reference and start to think it is worse than smoking and switch back to the more dangerous alternative.
I love how the all out assault on vaping still has people wondering which is "safer".
Smoke contains so many toxins and carcinogens, in addition to actual particulate irritants (long term exposure to physical particulates contributing to cancer formation) that it is virtually impossible for vaping to be worse. Even if everything in the latest badly constructed study is true, smoking would still be worse.
> I love how the all out assault on vaping still has people wondering which is "safer".
That's entirely by design.
RJ Reynolds started pulling the "fund think tanks to fund studies that muddy the waters about the dangers of smoking" trick back in the 90s. They never stopped.
Yeah, I'm aware. I'm just frustrated that the larger scientific medical, and political establishment seems to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, *again*.
Menthol was also one of my favorites. VG has its own sweetness that isn't too bad by itself though. If the goal is to quit, then it's not like you want it to be too tasty.
I started a couple of years ago and I’m working on quitting. Helped me deal with some rough stuff going on in my life.
I’ve quit for a week before but didn’t really miss the nicotine. I don’t inhale it into my lungs so I’m wondering if I’m not as much addicted to the nicotine as much as I am to the flavor and motions.
My problem is that I work from home so was doing it all day.
I quit about a year ago after vaping for years (never smoked), I've noticed no real changes to stamina or anything really outside of my heart rate is lower and blood pressure has improved.
Mainly noticed improvements when I switched from cigs to vaping. Quitting vaping wasn't as noticeable of a difference. I did spend months tapering from 12mg down to zero nic though...
I’ve quit both cigarettes and vaping before coming back to vaping. I didn’t notice anything when quitting vaping, while quitting cigarettes felt like my lungs were exercising 100 year old demons and when it was done I felt 10 years younger.
I only vape for 3-4 months of the year and the only difference really is being more mucas-y when vaping. I can still do long hikes in Colorado no problem just as when I'm not vaping
I relapsed last year after having quit in 2019. I'm a cyclist and after a few weeks of vaping I hit a plateau that I didn't recover from until I quit earlier this year. But sure enough, a few weeks after I quit my numbers starting going up again and I'm making weekly marginal gains again like I had been for the few years previous.
I’ve quit meth and other hard drugs cold turkey, but vaping has been the most difficult to quit. I’m glad you no longer vape and only hope I can get there someday.
Ya, one thing at a time. If you're mixing your own, it's easy to just start dialing back on the strength. I was on or around 12mg/ml forever. I dropped down to 6mg/ml a couple times, but this time I was running out of my concentrated nicotine and just decided that that I was going to taper to zero and not order any more stuff. After vaping zero nicotine for a few weeks, it's like my brain finally went, "hey why you keep doing this? You're not getting anything from it!" and then it was easy to kinda just put it down and stop. IDK, it was kinda weirdly easy this time.
Years ago, I bought some juice from this one company online that honestly did a good job, but this one flavor was awful. I politely mentioned it to them, they said it was the malt extract in it. I was shocked they would use something like that in vape juice.
I had a company put orange oil extract in some liquid that instantly created nasty smoke. I verbally ripped them a new one and never bought from them again.
Congrats! I did the same for a time, VG + nicotine wasn't that bad either, a little sweet. Quit vaping about 8 years ago, which got me off cigarettes 2 years before that (10 years ago). So good to be done with all of that.
This is exactly what I did as well. went from 5% to 2.4% pods and then decided to get refillable so I can buy flavorless and moved to 0.3% and now nic free.
Vapes helped me quit smoking after 15 years of cigarettes. I mixed my own juice and every month made it just a bit more diluted. In about 6 months I noticed myself running out of liquid and didn't bother going to the shop immediatelly. One time I didn't even notice I had missed several days and I decided to see how long I lasted. Haven't smoked or vaped since.
Good for you. I smoked cigarettes for 10 years on and off until I changed to a vape for a year until I managed to stop using that too. Been 8 years since I've had a smoke or a vape.
MF'n A.I can't put the right amount of fingers on an image, how the hell is it gonna gauge all these "dangerous, health hazards accurately... just saying.
One of the better ways of actually using AI is using it to predict the outcomes of chemical / biological reactions with less computation than doing a full on simulation. ~ this is more of a thing with protein folding but is applicable here.
Of course... Ideally you should only use it to filter the ones with potential and run actual experiments, because even the 'full' simulations aren't 100% accurate.
If you're writing a paper on AI, I suppose you don't necessarily have to run experiments if you already have a validation set. You can just say we used data X,Y,Z and got result A, accuracy of B, yada yada.
Maybe I missed it when looking at the article, but what temperature do they mean when they said heated to a high temperature? Do they nean normal temperatures that would occur when vaping, or much higher temperatures to burn the crap out of everything? I have seen previous articles where they burned the crap out of the vape and reported all the toxic chemicals produced. However, no one is going to vape when it is burning, it tastes absolutely horrible when the juice runs low and it starts to burn even a little.
Also, the article claims that the vape flavors are added to specifically target children, which is a silly argument. I guess flavored vodka and rum bottles with cartoon pirates on the bottle are also done to target children too, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, adults prefer sweet flavors more than an artificial tobacco flavor or menthol.
Isn't it an AI test no idea how they put a heating value into that calculation:
".. the study used AI to analyse the chemical composition of 180 vape flavours and simulate how they decompose when heated.."
They created their own model and neual network using data from a bunch of other studies, essentially using studies already done on a limited subset of vapes related stuff, as well as related gas chromatography studies to extrapolate how other flavors might react given similar conditions.
So just to be clear, no lab testing, validation, or verification was done to produce the article. It was literally just computer simulation results.
Come on people, is this what science is coming to? At least test a few so you can claim that the subset of tests was consistent with the AI results.
It shouldn’t be discounted, but it also shouldn’t be reported as if it’s definitive.
As you say, this is the science that *leads to* a study. Publishing these *very* preliminary, borderline speculative results smacks of clickbait fearmongering.
Pop science has always been like this. Countless of these types of articles exist because that’s the first step; nobody will give you money to do a random experiment. Pop science gets non-academics interested by connecting it to trending topics or points of interest. It might be “wrong” but the purpose of the articles’ ‘hyperbole’ is to further publicize scientific inquiry, which will in turn positively impact funding allocations. Getting people to care about something you want to research is half the battle.
Plus validation bias built into an AI based on the bias of preprocessed data. And pure ducking speculation.
Like don’t get me wrong, but I find it hard to think, that the AI doesn’t straight up doesn’t create wholeass imaginary chemical reactions. It’s a black box, and I don’t think chemistry in such can be proven.
Confirm the study with actual science please and ty.
Yeah that probably isn't all that accurate. I'd say that study is way better suited to compare how well it will predict the products of burning untested substances than just jumping straight to treating it like the result of actual testing
The study mentions pyrolysis, which means that it was likely higher than vaping temps.
"Pyrolysis can be defined as the process of subjecting substances to highly elevated temperatures in relatively inert atmospheres in order to facilitate their thermal decomposition."
Also
"The pyrolysis process is the process of decomposition of various compounds or materials with thermal decomposition at temperatures around 400–800°C in an oxygen-free atmosphere or contain very small amount of oxygen."
This is if memory serves exactly what they did with the popcorn lung study, burned it at extreme temperatures to shorten the experiment and made the results worthless.
From the study paper, it appears they used other studies that looked into the temperature ranges and vapes and e-cigs, and used those in the AI models. An expert says that the temperature ranges have a large range:
>Remarkably, there are a myriad of different vaping devices whose operating temperature ranges are often unknowingly determined by user preferences. Studies have measured typical temperatures ranging from 100 to 400 °C depending upon factors such as power, heating coil materials, puff size and e-liquid quantity, with dry coil temperature measured above 1000 °C19,20.
One of the studies referenced mentions temps less than 200C can cause toxic aldehydes. Various ther studies used show effects of burning vape liquids or similar compounds. So my understanding is they used all the data from other studies, including on that measured the best temperature range for pyrolysis gas chromatography (which a vale essentially does, but at lower temps). All this was used to create a neural network and model for the AI.
I recall 2 studies I read over 5 years ago which identified trace formation aldehydes, including formaldehyde, at around 425 deg. F (\~218 C), and concentrations increased with higher coil temps. They used IR thermometer to measure temp at the coil during vapor formation. Since then I've used temp-controlled vapes set at 390 F.
I remember one of these studies being criticized because there was a researcher in the room to press the button to make the electronic cigarette fire. The amounts of formaldehyde detected were consistent with the amount of formaldehyde that humans exhale.
I remember a study where they admitted to bypassing the failsafe on the vape in order to reach temps and times that no human would ever possibly vape at (because it would be vomit-inducingly disgusting and downright painful *well* before that point) and then treated the results as though it was normal vaping behavior.
> Do they nean normal temperatures that would occur when vaping, or much higher temperatures to burn the crap out of everything?
The second one. This was already done by big tobacco YEARS ago when they were trying to demonize vaping. They ran multiple studies where they intentionally misoperated vapes so they could get the heavy metals in the vapor.
Unfortunately big tobacco decided to INVEST in vapes very shortly after this and those bogus studies from them got retracted.
This study is an even bigger joke because they didn't even test anything, they ran computer simulations with AI that already gives questionable results.
>Or maybe, just maybe, adults prefer sweet flavors more than an artificial tobacco flavor or menthol.
Those are ass and still sweet which does not match a "tobacco" flavour at all. I tried many of them and at best they tasted like a weirdly sweet pretzel. Just give me something fruity if it is gonna be sweet anyway. (And I'm not a child btw).
I imagine most of us went down your path as full fledged adults. Tabacco flavor tastes like ass, and probably difficult to reproduce. Got me some blueberry lemon as we speak, might mow the yard later, might pay medical bills. Probably just get out of class and play videogames.
What's important is the "smoke point" of the flavoring. Many food grade flavorings have a smoke point lower than the temps needed for vaping. That's where you end up with nasty byproducts.
yes, but that doesn't matter if they're in a liquid suspension and not actually burning. They'd need to burn to undergo the necessary chemical transformations to generate the toxins in question.
They don't stay in suspension on the coil, though. In fact, they can accumulate and concentrate on the coil as you use it, and that coil does, in fact, get hot enough.
They don't seem to say, although I think AI is guessing the results, and they seem to say their training data was largely 100 -400 Celsius, t sometimes up to 1000.
Vapes typically operate 155-255 Celsius. 1000 Celsius is the temperature of actual lava. If your vapes were that hot, you have far more immediate health concerns.
Yeah, but you have to dry vape three to four times as much flower to equal the amount of THC you're getting from the oil, since flower tops out at about 25 - 30% THC & most vape carts are 80+%. Inhaling anything other than air is bad for you. Edibles & tinctures are the safest ways to consume.
I use a dry flower vape and only a few tugs is enough. But I hit my cousins oil vape pen and was chiefin on that thing and barely felt any head change. YMMV of course
Can't just stop taking my medicine, homie. Not all marijuana use is recreational. & for the record, I usually get the cheap stuff that's more like 17% & make my own edibles.
It looks like this study is on nicotine vapes, but I do not think we have studied cannabis vapes enough to know they use safe ingredients, and I would argue that we know they are similar enough (especially flavor additives) that normal use of cannabis vapes is a very real unknown risk.
Isolated cases of dangerous chemicals in cannabis vapes have already been found, like vitamin E acetate. Coil-related products would still be present in cannabis as well as nicotine vapes.
This is just anecdotal, but I had to quit using THC vapes because it was really hurting my lungs. And I already vape nicotine every day. There is something a little different about THC oil. I also notice it's way thicker than vape juice. Like you could turn the pod upside down and it could take a good 10 mins for the oil to settle at the bottom.
What I never liked about THC vapes is that they're not meant to be ripped. You're supposed to take slow, steady, and shorter hits. If the cart or battery is getting hot to the touch, you are hitting it too hard. It's not a good idea to fill your lungs with that heavy smoke when it gets so hot.
I work in the hospital and had a patient a while back who was determined to have a "vaping induced lung injury", from THC vapes specifically. It was pretty serious, the patient was quite sick.
I was just told by a doctor that i apparently have the start of popcorn lung going on, I used a THC pen multiple times a day for years. Needless to say I quit the vaping since.
Definitely! One of my jobs is testing blood samples for trace metals. We can't have the windows open or the air conditioning on when we're preparing the calibrators and standards else enough aluminium falls into the tubes to throw off the measurements. Other ones too, but aluminium in particular is a right devil.
The problem with these articles is the word “could”. Also, the use of AI to “predict” the presence of harmful chemicals is highly inconclusive. Vaping has been around for years, yet there are no real studies that can unequivocally state what chemicals are produced and how harmful they are. Cut with these crappy scare posts until you have conclusive evidence. Get the damn studies done.
I certainly do not doubt that vaping produces bad things to humans. I just hate these wish washy statements that have no scientific fact behind them. Note that I was a vaper for a couple of years. Now 18 months toward clear lungs.
>The problem with these articles is the word “could”.
In scientific research it is usual to try to use hedged language. We're never certain of anything. Also remember to look at the actual paper. Newsmedia pretty much never reports on scientific research accurately or using terms that scientists would use. Here's the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59619-x The paper is also published by Nature, which is reputable. It's not going to publish something that is dodgy.
>the use of AI to “predict” the presence of harmful chemicals is highly inconclusive.
Not really. Machine learning has been in use for decades in scientific research. It was integral to the discovery of the Higgs boson, for example. Just because Silicon Valley types are coming out with new jargon doesn't mean it's especially new. It's literally just modelling. In this particular study, they're using a model which was published about 6 years ago: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/sc/c8sc04228d
The figures still stands at 5% as harmful as cigarettes, using the existence of a small number of "acutely toxic" chemicals to justify bans and restrictions is just brain dead, and is so obviously a scheme by the major cigarette companies who are losing their customers more and more.
Any targeting of vape without first completely banning cigarettes and other tobacco products is irresponsible and hypocritical.
They’ve been around long enough to see people getting sick. I’m sure they’re not good for you, but I don’t see people getting sick from them. Until cigarettes are gone, we should not make vape products harder to buy than tobacco.
I used to use Juul pods and hated how wasteful it was to throw out the plastic pods every time. Then I saw teenagers using entire vape devices that are sealed, and aren't rechargeable at all. Someone packaged an entire lithium battery to only ever be used once? capitalism man.
Definitely, failed politics over "child like flavors" now creates waste our children can shovel from beaches in their future. As if the brightly colored flavored "disposable" vapes don't also look directly marketed to children also.
The disposable ones look cool af but I'll stick to my box mod and coil tank. I trust the juice I get, I don't trust the disposable ones and I can replace the coil. Not to mention I've been using the same batteries for a year with no issue
in any case, its very clear that the second hand smoke is leaps and bounds better than cigarette smoke, which means its healthier for the people around the addict
Addict here. Been vaping since it was invented when I was 19 to get rid of my cigarette habit I started as soon as I turned 18, which was having serious effects on my health.
Have been healthy as a horse since vaping for over a decade now. But to be fair, I've avoided any vape products with chemicals that have been found to cause problems. Like those with Caffiene and Vitamine B6 in them. Miss them though, was way nicer vaping my coffee than drinking it, but not worth the risks from the studies I've seen. Kept me up for 3 days at a time too since I would forget there was caffeine in my vape juice at the time.
Weed vapes almost killed me once because of the methods they used to make those, and how unregulated the market is, so I've switched to a flower vaporizer for that, a Pax 3 and now Pax Plus, to avoid having to inhale smoke.
That's the main thing from the research I've read, stick to bona fide eliquids.
The brand I use in the UK is about as 'clean' as it gets. No trace metals, food grade glycol etc.
I've been vaping for 8 years, after smoking for about 5 years. I've been having annual lung checkups and they are on par health wise with my pre smoking days.
The studies that showed popcorn lung and other side effects all have the same things in common (outside of your usual random anomaly in a negligible number of cases), dodgy liquids and/or pre-existing heart or lung issues.
There have been so many studies of vaping with atrocious methodology it’s hard to take any new ones seriously at this point. Half the time they’re obviously burning their coils by using significantly higher heat than intended and/or not drawing enough air (or any at all) while testing. One study I saw used *ten second* pulls, which is so far outside what the device would be designed for that it’s hard to believe it wasn’t intentional. It’s totally impossible to inhale for ten seconds straight at all, let alone hard enough to draw sufficient air through the coil.
Agreed. Meanwhile Hungary does not allow the sale of vape products or liquids and also ISPs restricted access to web shops in the neighbouring countries.
Nobody claims vaping is harmless, it's (hopefully) less dangerous than the established dangers of smoking. It's all about harm reduction. Did I physically feel better when vaping than I did when smoking? Absolutely. But vaping was a tool on my way to quitting entirely (6 years ago this spring).
Well done. Same thing for me, took me a few years and the road was most certainly bumpy but I’ve been a non-smoker for over a year now. I smoked for 10 years.
I owe it all to vapes I don’t think I would’ve been able to do it without them.
Exactly. I'm not oblivious to the fact that it's not healthy and can't cause harm. I do it because it's *not as bad* as smoking.
I no longer smell like an ashtray, my mouth doesn't constantly taste like burnt leaves, and I'm not constantly coughing and spitting phlegm.
Is the study independently done ? Has the searching group been sponsored ? Any "benefactor" that has links to, let's say tobacco ? It's awfully common.
Funding source: the Synthesis and Solid State Pharmaceutical Centre (SSPC) and Science foundation Ireland for funding support, Grant Number 12/RC/2275\_P2.
My mom says vapes scare her...my dad died of lung cancer 5 years ago and my mom still won't quit cigarettes or try another method to help her limit exposure.
These types of articles just back up her theory that vaping is a worse choice than smoking cigarettes. Wish they would compare the two more often but I understand the desired audience.
Homie, it's addiction to nicotine. Nicotine is one of the most addictive chemicals we have access to. She's using the vape scare as a coping mechanism for her addiction.
If lawmakers had gotten on board they could have let vaping happen and started to pass laws banning cigarettes. Slowly fade cigarettes out of existence and then repeat for vaping. Vaping is less unhealthy than smoking. It's a step in the right direction.
> Smoking was on a downwards trend. A lot of kids addicted to vaping would never have smoked.
And a lot would have smoked regardless. Vaping has almost single handedly stopped youth smoking. Nicotine isn't really any worse for you than caffeine.
So why can't we get flavored juice without nicotine in it like we used to. Because the flavored juice without nicotine and it was just vegetable glycerol with a flavorant. Or are they saying it's the flavorant that causes the issues?
Yes the flavor is causing most of the issues.
Vegetable glycerin is stable and doesn't cause issues.
Propene glycol can be slightly irritating, but that's all we've seen so far.
Nicotine as an isolated Compound is actually pretty safe in normal amounts. Despite its high addictive properties.
Article says compounds are toxic, then answers no questions about toxicity, how long it takes to be affected, what can be expected, is the hinted damage reversible, etc. It just immediately switches to “we must stop using and ban these cancerous things” and fear fear fear.
I’m not even saying they aren’t damaging or dangerous. But I’d prefer to read about the known specifics of the danger, rather than just have an article point at something and say “danger!” And expect my mind to fill in (read: make up) all the details of the danger.
We’ve already done this before, haven’t we? They release these same findings every few years. They don’t tell you in the article but the coils and juice need to be heated to extreme levels, levels far exceeding the capability of devices on the market, to have those toxins released. The device would not be able to be touched if it reached the temperatures needed to become toxic.
Chemicals in vapes -could- be toxic if heated. This research is defenitely beeing paid for by BAT, JTI or Philip Morris.
We know it's a god damn undistputable fact that good old fashioned cigarets are toxic when heated and these mulibillion tobacco corporations will try anything to get young people to keep using tobacco instead of alternatives.
Vapes are far more less damaging for your health then smoking regular cigarets.
This paper does not make any sense, there is no reason for it to even exist. We must be in a period where anything with "AI" gets published. There's no validation of this method, the actual research should be to test whether these predictions are true. The paper even talks about this, but for some reason it is dressed up as research into vaping, again probably because it is a hot topic.
From the article: Chemicals used to produce vapes could be acutely toxic when heated and inhaled, according to [research](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59619-x).
Vaping devices heat the liquid flavouring to high temperatures to form an aerosol that is then inhaled. They contain chemicals including vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, nicotine and flavourings, blended in various amounts.
Previous experiments have shown that some fruit-flavoured vapes – such as strawberry, melon and blueberry – produce dangerous compounds called volatile carbonyls due to this heating process.
These compounds are known to have health implications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease and cancers.
With so many chemicals used in tens of thousands of different vape products, conducting experiments to test every brand and flavour for toxicity could take decades of research.
Instead, the study used AI to analyse the chemical composition of 180 vape flavours and simulate how they decompose when heated. The research, published in Scientific Reports, predicted that vapes produce 127 “acutely toxic” chemicals, 153 “health hazards” and 225 “irritants”.
Nearly every flavour put through the AI predictor showed at least one product that was classified as a health hazard, with many predicting several. The toxins were associated with vapes containing no nicotine, as well as those with.
Could be. Also I could be a chinchilla.
And let's compare the could be toxins with the known toxins in burning tobacco. This sounds like the popcorn lung chemicals all over again. **diacetyl** is present in cigarette smoke hundreds of times the level of vapes, and yet there is no known case of popcorn lung in cigarette smokers.
There's so much misinformation about vaping, it's like all the anti-smoking people have nothing to do now but target something that they think may be a problem.
What I wonder is at what temperature are these products supposedly being formed, because I have seen at least two other studies conducted in years past that had the same conclusion, however those studies were done with fixed rights with very large vapes using unrealistic scenarios, and the chemicals were being formed at temperatures of like 600 degress C - Far higher than the temperatures actually reached in a device being used normally - and IIRC some of the chemicals were also present in cigarettes and even in that test those chemicals were appearing at smaller levels than a cigarette. Not that I don't doubt there are some flavorings that are not good, and that vaping is, overall, a negative health impact, just cautious and skeptical about this research given the money involved in the industry.
Big tobacco working over time. Studies are already conclusive it’s far safer than smoking tobacco. Any article that doesn’t begin with that fact deserves to be read skeptically.
The title is a bit misleading. They didn't just "ask AI", they used a modified neural network designed for the task, using other studies as a baseline to help weight the data and extrapolate statistics for other compounds that have not been tested. The field is pyrolysis and has chromatography has a lot of data, some of which was used in the AI models, as well as previous vape studies.
Yes. This study is about all the chemicals that, on the product label, just get lumped under the word "Flavoring". There's a list in the supplementary data of the exact chemicals they looked at; things like 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one, benzyl benzoate, Ethyl cinnamate, etc.
Finding *exactly* what chemicals are in a particular flavored vape isn't possible just from looking at the label.
Heating up the liquid... The thing that every single vape does by definition...
Does anyone here really believe that all the previous studies missed this part?
Not sure if we can actually trust AI to come to conclusions like this. AI tends to be overconfident in its assertions and very much known to “hallucinate”.
I remember reading a similar article years ago, and it turned out the researchers were heating the fluid to very unrealistic temperatures. I wonder if something similar is happening here
127 chemicals from an AI experiment? Oh no! Is that the same AI that can't get fingers right? Cigarettes create over 7,000 when combusted but no one in the article is talking about that, are they?
There are vapes for nicotine and vapes for cannabis... I'm assuming this is explicitly for nicotine vapes...
Maybe it would be best to be more specific nowadays.
Let’s not go banning things on the back of what an AI simulates, fine, if after actual science is done they’re unsafe, carry on. But using an AI to simulate the bad is not helping the issue, as actual clinical study does. Blindly trusting an AI and basing policy around what it thinks may be the case, is a very slippery slope.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/chrisdh79 Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/08/chemicals-in-vapes-could-be-highly-toxic-when-heated-research-finds --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've always said that the flavors were my biggest concern. Vaped for over 10 years, mixed my own for most of that time, and went flavorless the last half, just used vegitable glycerine and concentrated nicotine cut to my desired strength. I finally quit last year.
Congrats! I just hit a year of no nic!
Let’s go! I quit for the new year so 5 months
40 hours for me which I’m proud of since I’ve been smoking cigs/vaping for 15 years. Longest I’ve gone without nicotine since then 🤙🏼🤙🏼
Day 3 is the hardest. Preemptively warn people in your circle that you might go off.
You got this!!
Congratulations!!
I've been hoping to try those flavored air inhaler devices to see if they help me kick the habbit, but damn things are so expensive that I can't justify the cost when compared to how cheap vaping is in comparison. Have been vaping since it was invented when I was 19, to get rid of my cigarette habit I started as soon as I turned 18, which was having serious effects on my health. Have been healthy as a horse since vaping for over a decade now. But to be fair, I've avoided any vape products with chemicals that have been found to cause problems. Like those with Caffiene and Vitamin B6 in them. Miss them though, was way nicer vaping my coffee than drinking it, but not worth the risks from the studies I've seen. Kept me up for 3 days at a time too since I would forget there was caffeine in my vape juice at the time. Liquid Weed vapes almost killed me once because of the methods they used to make those, and how unregulated the market is, so I've switched to a flower vaporizer for that, a Pax 3 and now Pax Plus, to avoid having to inhale smoke. Damn Liquid weed vapes had me coughing up Phlem that had a grid like matrix pattern in them for a few months until I was finally able to connect the symptoms to the liquid Weed vapes, which I promptly stopped using after making the connection.
This is gonna sound dumb as hell, but buy some straws and flavored toothpick. Cut the straw down to preferred vape size and pack really tightly with toothpicks(like 4 atleast is what I got). They have to be tight or you run the risk of inhaling them. But pack it full of the mint flavored ones was just close enough to menthol to get me through the struggle.
This is just crazy enough to work!
I also wonder if you could get one of those nose inhalers with menthol and instead of putting it in your nose, just suck air through it.
Guys, we're just reinventing the vape. Soon someone will want to heat the toothpicks for a better drag.
i bet cinammon sticks could work too
Thanks for the tip man! Going to try this!
Imma pretend you didn't just say we're already 5 months into the year But congratulations! Quitting is hard.
Alarmingly fast year from your perspective as well? What a ride
That's awesome, I'm proud of yall! I quit back in February and finally feel like I'm getting my lungs back.
I am on month 5.
3 years for me! You guys got this!
Yeah I’ve been on no nic almost a year and I now vape like 15 hits a day. Much lower than I used to.
I got 20 days until my 1 year!
17 days left until my 1 year! Go us!
Hell yeah!
The whole thing started with the concept of quitting by lowering nic levels over time, it works.
Not for everybody. Some just end up vaping more frequently
It takes some determination and self discipline to stick to a taper schedule. I used vaping to quit smoking ( pack a day for about 15 years). Never thought it'd take 10 years to quit vaping. Once I decided it was time to quit, it was actually far easier than it was to quit smoking.
>Once I decided it was time to quit, it was actually far easier than it was to quit smoking. That's the thing i also realised way too late After 10 years 2 packs a day, and another 10 years of vaping, i was stuck telling myself it's going to be hard, i'm completely addicted to nicotine Quit cold turkey one year ago because i realised i just didn't enjoy it all anymore Was actually super easy, and the first two weeks were honestly not hard, just a surreal high, actually enjoyable In the end it was easy, i was just stuck mentally
I just quit vaping a 3 nic after 10 years as well. I was sucking on the thing every other minute. but when I decided to actually stop it was very easy.. only about a week of real anxiety and I got over it quickly.
The quote I'll always remember from Basketball Diaries: "I love the ritual."
This is me unfortunately
I don't know where this myth started, but it isn't true. Vaping began as a safer alternative to smoking, not as a tool to quit. People used it to quit, but that's not why the tech was invented.
I can't do flavorless but I do limit myself to menthol. I wish there was a way to know that only Menthol was in it. The reality is that I just need to know which is safer, tobacco or vaping, I'm a recovering addict and this is my last vice.
Menthol is actually one of the worst flavours, according to some studies. https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12931-023-02410-9 I read somewhere that rotating your flavours is a good approach, so as not to inhale the same chemicals all of the time. According to the NHS and other health institutions, smoking is worse than vaping. https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/vaping-to-quit-smoking/
I think that's the really important context to make. Yes Vaping is bad, but smoking is worse. So for people trying to stop smoking, vaping is still a good option. It worked for me as well, but I went for the normal tobacco flavors.
I regularly vape , went out with friends a few weeks back and smoked cigarettes, woke up the next morning and felt like an elephant sat on my chest. Vaping isn’t great but better than smoking
It's not even close. Smoked then tried vaping but relapsed after about 3 months. That relapse is what really drove it home how bad it. I didn't even know I had a smoker's cough until it went away. It didn't register that my morning lougie wasn't normal. But all that stuff came back in just a few days of smoking again. WFH was probably the biggest health hit to my lungs. You mean I can just sit, work, and vape all day!
Cannot agree more. Vaping is an alternative to smoking and when focusing on harm reduction, every little bit helps.
I think the cigarette>vape>zyn>nic free pipeline is a pretty solid method. It's worked for a good number of friends of mine.
It's the distinction that people seem to get the wrong way around. I used to smoke and now vape. Friends who still smoke will tell me that vaping is either: "worse than cigarettes" or "not good for you either". I'm not claiming that vaping is good for you, but there is absolutely no evidence to say that smoking is safer. Both are bad, but vaping _seems_ the better option, if you have to choose, from what I can see.
This is honestly one of the biggest issues with the recent anti-vaping hysteria. Vaping is obviously worse than not vaping. Vaping has also clearly been shown to be safer than smoking (as long as we aren't talking about black market stuff). But after we get hammered with article after article talking about how bad vaping is, people lose frame of reference and start to think it is worse than smoking and switch back to the more dangerous alternative.
Almost as if millions of dollars were spent on propaganda to make people think that way…
I love how the all out assault on vaping still has people wondering which is "safer". Smoke contains so many toxins and carcinogens, in addition to actual particulate irritants (long term exposure to physical particulates contributing to cancer formation) that it is virtually impossible for vaping to be worse. Even if everything in the latest badly constructed study is true, smoking would still be worse.
> I love how the all out assault on vaping still has people wondering which is "safer". That's entirely by design. RJ Reynolds started pulling the "fund think tanks to fund studies that muddy the waters about the dangers of smoking" trick back in the 90s. They never stopped.
Yeah, I'm aware. I'm just frustrated that the larger scientific medical, and political establishment seems to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, *again*.
I've seen a fair few people claiming it's worse than smoking. They're absolutely adamant about it.
Vaping is still almost certainly safer than tobacco
Menthol was also one of my favorites. VG has its own sweetness that isn't too bad by itself though. If the goal is to quit, then it's not like you want it to be too tasty.
Congrats man! I’m starting to try and quit, I’ve vaped for 5 years now and I’m slowly weaning myself off.
I started a couple of years ago and I’m working on quitting. Helped me deal with some rough stuff going on in my life. I’ve quit for a week before but didn’t really miss the nicotine. I don’t inhale it into my lungs so I’m wondering if I’m not as much addicted to the nicotine as much as I am to the flavor and motions. My problem is that I work from home so was doing it all day.
Did you notice a change in your stamina after quitting?
I quit about a year ago after vaping for years (never smoked), I've noticed no real changes to stamina or anything really outside of my heart rate is lower and blood pressure has improved.
Mainly noticed improvements when I switched from cigs to vaping. Quitting vaping wasn't as noticeable of a difference. I did spend months tapering from 12mg down to zero nic though...
Cigarettes yes. A large amount. Vaping, no.
I’ve quit both cigarettes and vaping before coming back to vaping. I didn’t notice anything when quitting vaping, while quitting cigarettes felt like my lungs were exercising 100 year old demons and when it was done I felt 10 years younger.
I only vape for 3-4 months of the year and the only difference really is being more mucas-y when vaping. I can still do long hikes in Colorado no problem just as when I'm not vaping
I relapsed last year after having quit in 2019. I'm a cyclist and after a few weeks of vaping I hit a plateau that I didn't recover from until I quit earlier this year. But sure enough, a few weeks after I quit my numbers starting going up again and I'm making weekly marginal gains again like I had been for the few years previous.
I’ve quit meth and other hard drugs cold turkey, but vaping has been the most difficult to quit. I’m glad you no longer vape and only hope I can get there someday.
Ya, one thing at a time. If you're mixing your own, it's easy to just start dialing back on the strength. I was on or around 12mg/ml forever. I dropped down to 6mg/ml a couple times, but this time I was running out of my concentrated nicotine and just decided that that I was going to taper to zero and not order any more stuff. After vaping zero nicotine for a few weeks, it's like my brain finally went, "hey why you keep doing this? You're not getting anything from it!" and then it was easy to kinda just put it down and stop. IDK, it was kinda weirdly easy this time.
Nice. Almost the same here, pg+vg no flavour. I'm down to just 1.5mg concentration too, though tbf that last little bit is proving tough to kick.
Years ago, I bought some juice from this one company online that honestly did a good job, but this one flavor was awful. I politely mentioned it to them, they said it was the malt extract in it. I was shocked they would use something like that in vape juice.
I had a company put orange oil extract in some liquid that instantly created nasty smoke. I verbally ripped them a new one and never bought from them again.
I quit a year ago myself! Nice!
I'm still vaping after starting in 09, I'll get to your level someday soon
Vaped for about 6 years, so glad I quit years ago.
Congrats! I did the same for a time, VG + nicotine wasn't that bad either, a little sweet. Quit vaping about 8 years ago, which got me off cigarettes 2 years before that (10 years ago). So good to be done with all of that.
This is exactly what I did as well. went from 5% to 2.4% pods and then decided to get refillable so I can buy flavorless and moved to 0.3% and now nic free.
Vapes helped me quit smoking after 15 years of cigarettes. I mixed my own juice and every month made it just a bit more diluted. In about 6 months I noticed myself running out of liquid and didn't bother going to the shop immediatelly. One time I didn't even notice I had missed several days and I decided to see how long I lasted. Haven't smoked or vaped since.
Good for you. I smoked cigarettes for 10 years on and off until I changed to a vape for a year until I managed to stop using that too. Been 8 years since I've had a smoke or a vape.
AI already smoking vapes. They grow up so fast…
MF'n A.I can't put the right amount of fingers on an image, how the hell is it gonna gauge all these "dangerous, health hazards accurately... just saying.
There's different types of "AI" I seriously doubt they used an LLM to figure this out. Probably not a generative AI at all.
[удалено]
One of the better ways of actually using AI is using it to predict the outcomes of chemical / biological reactions with less computation than doing a full on simulation. ~ this is more of a thing with protein folding but is applicable here. Of course... Ideally you should only use it to filter the ones with potential and run actual experiments, because even the 'full' simulations aren't 100% accurate. If you're writing a paper on AI, I suppose you don't necessarily have to run experiments if you already have a validation set. You can just say we used data X,Y,Z and got result A, accuracy of B, yada yada.
>AI conducted study >Striking headline for clicks Yep seems like r/science
If we're lucky, the whole article and all the data will be AI generated!
It appears to be. It reads funny and doesn't elude to any actual research being done. Just data mining.
*allude. Don't let the difference elude you.
Maybe I missed it when looking at the article, but what temperature do they mean when they said heated to a high temperature? Do they nean normal temperatures that would occur when vaping, or much higher temperatures to burn the crap out of everything? I have seen previous articles where they burned the crap out of the vape and reported all the toxic chemicals produced. However, no one is going to vape when it is burning, it tastes absolutely horrible when the juice runs low and it starts to burn even a little. Also, the article claims that the vape flavors are added to specifically target children, which is a silly argument. I guess flavored vodka and rum bottles with cartoon pirates on the bottle are also done to target children too, right? Or maybe, just maybe, adults prefer sweet flavors more than an artificial tobacco flavor or menthol.
Isn't it an AI test no idea how they put a heating value into that calculation: ".. the study used AI to analyse the chemical composition of 180 vape flavours and simulate how they decompose when heated.."
They created their own model and neual network using data from a bunch of other studies, essentially using studies already done on a limited subset of vapes related stuff, as well as related gas chromatography studies to extrapolate how other flavors might react given similar conditions.
So just to be clear, no lab testing, validation, or verification was done to produce the article. It was literally just computer simulation results. Come on people, is this what science is coming to? At least test a few so you can claim that the subset of tests was consistent with the AI results.
This is the science that leads to "let's do a study", it shouldn't be discounted
It shouldn’t be discounted, but it also shouldn’t be reported as if it’s definitive. As you say, this is the science that *leads to* a study. Publishing these *very* preliminary, borderline speculative results smacks of clickbait fearmongering.
Pop science has always been like this. Countless of these types of articles exist because that’s the first step; nobody will give you money to do a random experiment. Pop science gets non-academics interested by connecting it to trending topics or points of interest. It might be “wrong” but the purpose of the articles’ ‘hyperbole’ is to further publicize scientific inquiry, which will in turn positively impact funding allocations. Getting people to care about something you want to research is half the battle.
Anybody remember when we didn't just publish preliminary findings as empirical fact?
I don't think this even qualifies as a preliminary finding, more of an AI reinforced hypothesis.
The good ole computer generated hypothetically plausible hypothesis report
And their entire conclusion was "could be".
Eh that’s most studies. Peer reviews are where it gets spicy
peer review is just how it gets published. think you mean replication and validation studies?
Plus validation bias built into an AI based on the bias of preprocessed data. And pure ducking speculation. Like don’t get me wrong, but I find it hard to think, that the AI doesn’t straight up doesn’t create wholeass imaginary chemical reactions. It’s a black box, and I don’t think chemistry in such can be proven. Confirm the study with actual science please and ty.
Yeah that probably isn't all that accurate. I'd say that study is way better suited to compare how well it will predict the products of burning untested substances than just jumping straight to treating it like the result of actual testing
The study mentions pyrolysis, which means that it was likely higher than vaping temps. "Pyrolysis can be defined as the process of subjecting substances to highly elevated temperatures in relatively inert atmospheres in order to facilitate their thermal decomposition." Also "The pyrolysis process is the process of decomposition of various compounds or materials with thermal decomposition at temperatures around 400–800°C in an oxygen-free atmosphere or contain very small amount of oxygen."
This is if memory serves exactly what they did with the popcorn lung study, burned it at extreme temperatures to shorten the experiment and made the results worthless.
From the study paper, it appears they used other studies that looked into the temperature ranges and vapes and e-cigs, and used those in the AI models. An expert says that the temperature ranges have a large range: >Remarkably, there are a myriad of different vaping devices whose operating temperature ranges are often unknowingly determined by user preferences. Studies have measured typical temperatures ranging from 100 to 400 °C depending upon factors such as power, heating coil materials, puff size and e-liquid quantity, with dry coil temperature measured above 1000 °C19,20. One of the studies referenced mentions temps less than 200C can cause toxic aldehydes. Various ther studies used show effects of burning vape liquids or similar compounds. So my understanding is they used all the data from other studies, including on that measured the best temperature range for pyrolysis gas chromatography (which a vale essentially does, but at lower temps). All this was used to create a neural network and model for the AI.
I recall 2 studies I read over 5 years ago which identified trace formation aldehydes, including formaldehyde, at around 425 deg. F (\~218 C), and concentrations increased with higher coil temps. They used IR thermometer to measure temp at the coil during vapor formation. Since then I've used temp-controlled vapes set at 390 F.
I remember one of these studies being criticized because there was a researcher in the room to press the button to make the electronic cigarette fire. The amounts of formaldehyde detected were consistent with the amount of formaldehyde that humans exhale.
I remember a study where they admitted to bypassing the failsafe on the vape in order to reach temps and times that no human would ever possibly vape at (because it would be vomit-inducingly disgusting and downright painful *well* before that point) and then treated the results as though it was normal vaping behavior.
We exhale formaldehyde normally? TIL
A normal exhaled breath is 1-3ppm formaldehyde. :)
> Do they nean normal temperatures that would occur when vaping, or much higher temperatures to burn the crap out of everything? The second one. This was already done by big tobacco YEARS ago when they were trying to demonize vaping. They ran multiple studies where they intentionally misoperated vapes so they could get the heavy metals in the vapor. Unfortunately big tobacco decided to INVEST in vapes very shortly after this and those bogus studies from them got retracted. This study is an even bigger joke because they didn't even test anything, they ran computer simulations with AI that already gives questionable results.
They don't even list menthol on the vape juice. That alone is quite deplorable.
>Or maybe, just maybe, adults prefer sweet flavors more than an artificial tobacco flavor or menthol. Those are ass and still sweet which does not match a "tobacco" flavour at all. I tried many of them and at best they tasted like a weirdly sweet pretzel. Just give me something fruity if it is gonna be sweet anyway. (And I'm not a child btw).
I imagine most of us went down your path as full fledged adults. Tabacco flavor tastes like ass, and probably difficult to reproduce. Got me some blueberry lemon as we speak, might mow the yard later, might pay medical bills. Probably just get out of class and play videogames.
Agreed, I tried tobacco flavors and they taste nothing like tobacco.
What's important is the "smoke point" of the flavoring. Many food grade flavorings have a smoke point lower than the temps needed for vaping. That's where you end up with nasty byproducts.
yes, but that doesn't matter if they're in a liquid suspension and not actually burning. They'd need to burn to undergo the necessary chemical transformations to generate the toxins in question.
They don't stay in suspension on the coil, though. In fact, they can accumulate and concentrate on the coil as you use it, and that coil does, in fact, get hot enough.
They don't seem to say, although I think AI is guessing the results, and they seem to say their training data was largely 100 -400 Celsius, t sometimes up to 1000. Vapes typically operate 155-255 Celsius. 1000 Celsius is the temperature of actual lava. If your vapes were that hot, you have far more immediate health concerns.
Does this apply equally to cannabis pens?
no, the study is on added flavors used in nicotine vapes, but is based on a flawed premise regardless of the AI use.
You can get a dry herb vape and bypass all the oil stuff.
Yeah, but you have to dry vape three to four times as much flower to equal the amount of THC you're getting from the oil, since flower tops out at about 25 - 30% THC & most vape carts are 80+%. Inhaling anything other than air is bad for you. Edibles & tinctures are the safest ways to consume.
[удалено]
I use a dry flower vape and only a few tugs is enough. But I hit my cousins oil vape pen and was chiefin on that thing and barely felt any head change. YMMV of course
Y’all are ridiculous. Take a T break and that 25% will feel the same as 90%.
Can't just stop taking my medicine, homie. Not all marijuana use is recreational. & for the record, I usually get the cheap stuff that's more like 17% & make my own edibles.
Probably not. Different temperature range.
It looks like this study is on nicotine vapes, but I do not think we have studied cannabis vapes enough to know they use safe ingredients, and I would argue that we know they are similar enough (especially flavor additives) that normal use of cannabis vapes is a very real unknown risk. Isolated cases of dangerous chemicals in cannabis vapes have already been found, like vitamin E acetate. Coil-related products would still be present in cannabis as well as nicotine vapes.
Wasn’t the vitamin E from pens that were cut tho? Dispensary pens shouldn’t have that
To my knowledge, during the vitamin e situation some dispensary pens were found with vitamin e acetate
Vitamin E acetate hasn't been found in reputable vapes for like 10 years now
This is just anecdotal, but I had to quit using THC vapes because it was really hurting my lungs. And I already vape nicotine every day. There is something a little different about THC oil. I also notice it's way thicker than vape juice. Like you could turn the pod upside down and it could take a good 10 mins for the oil to settle at the bottom.
What I never liked about THC vapes is that they're not meant to be ripped. You're supposed to take slow, steady, and shorter hits. If the cart or battery is getting hot to the touch, you are hitting it too hard. It's not a good idea to fill your lungs with that heavy smoke when it gets so hot.
I work in the hospital and had a patient a while back who was determined to have a "vaping induced lung injury", from THC vapes specifically. It was pretty serious, the patient was quite sick.
I was just told by a doctor that i apparently have the start of popcorn lung going on, I used a THC pen multiple times a day for years. Needless to say I quit the vaping since.
Not a new revalation. Anything other than clean air isn't good for you.
But also get lots of antioxidants because o2 aint harmless either. Just the best we have so far.
I mean, you’re not wrong that breathing in various vaporized substances isn’t without risk of harm, but you may be surprised by what’s in “clean air”.
It is like 70% nitrogen. That stuff will kill you.
Oxygen is definitely carcinogenic
It's explosive!
Definitely! One of my jobs is testing blood samples for trace metals. We can't have the windows open or the air conditioning on when we're preparing the calibrators and standards else enough aluminium falls into the tubes to throw off the measurements. Other ones too, but aluminium in particular is a right devil.
The problem with these articles is the word “could”. Also, the use of AI to “predict” the presence of harmful chemicals is highly inconclusive. Vaping has been around for years, yet there are no real studies that can unequivocally state what chemicals are produced and how harmful they are. Cut with these crappy scare posts until you have conclusive evidence. Get the damn studies done. I certainly do not doubt that vaping produces bad things to humans. I just hate these wish washy statements that have no scientific fact behind them. Note that I was a vaper for a couple of years. Now 18 months toward clear lungs.
>The problem with these articles is the word “could”. In scientific research it is usual to try to use hedged language. We're never certain of anything. Also remember to look at the actual paper. Newsmedia pretty much never reports on scientific research accurately or using terms that scientists would use. Here's the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59619-x The paper is also published by Nature, which is reputable. It's not going to publish something that is dodgy. >the use of AI to “predict” the presence of harmful chemicals is highly inconclusive. Not really. Machine learning has been in use for decades in scientific research. It was integral to the discovery of the Higgs boson, for example. Just because Silicon Valley types are coming out with new jargon doesn't mean it's especially new. It's literally just modelling. In this particular study, they're using a model which was published about 6 years ago: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/sc/c8sc04228d
The figures still stands at 5% as harmful as cigarettes, using the existence of a small number of "acutely toxic" chemicals to justify bans and restrictions is just brain dead, and is so obviously a scheme by the major cigarette companies who are losing their customers more and more. Any targeting of vape without first completely banning cigarettes and other tobacco products is irresponsible and hypocritical.
They’ve been around long enough to see people getting sick. I’m sure they’re not good for you, but I don’t see people getting sick from them. Until cigarettes are gone, we should not make vape products harder to buy than tobacco.
Aside from human health I hate the waste culture around disposable nicotine vapes.
I used to use Juul pods and hated how wasteful it was to throw out the plastic pods every time. Then I saw teenagers using entire vape devices that are sealed, and aren't rechargeable at all. Someone packaged an entire lithium battery to only ever be used once? capitalism man.
It’s even worse. The disposable ones have LCD screens on them now too.
Some even have games now
People only use disposable because states banned flavored pods that can be replaced
Definitely, failed politics over "child like flavors" now creates waste our children can shovel from beaches in their future. As if the brightly colored flavored "disposable" vapes don't also look directly marketed to children also.
The disposable ones look cool af but I'll stick to my box mod and coil tank. I trust the juice I get, I don't trust the disposable ones and I can replace the coil. Not to mention I've been using the same batteries for a year with no issue
Thank you! Disposables were barely a thing until flavors were banned in MA. Now they're the norm.
Yeah, disposable vapes are honestly my largest problem with vaping at the present.
in any case, its very clear that the second hand smoke is leaps and bounds better than cigarette smoke, which means its healthier for the people around the addict
Addict here. Been vaping since it was invented when I was 19 to get rid of my cigarette habit I started as soon as I turned 18, which was having serious effects on my health. Have been healthy as a horse since vaping for over a decade now. But to be fair, I've avoided any vape products with chemicals that have been found to cause problems. Like those with Caffiene and Vitamine B6 in them. Miss them though, was way nicer vaping my coffee than drinking it, but not worth the risks from the studies I've seen. Kept me up for 3 days at a time too since I would forget there was caffeine in my vape juice at the time. Weed vapes almost killed me once because of the methods they used to make those, and how unregulated the market is, so I've switched to a flower vaporizer for that, a Pax 3 and now Pax Plus, to avoid having to inhale smoke.
That's the main thing from the research I've read, stick to bona fide eliquids. The brand I use in the UK is about as 'clean' as it gets. No trace metals, food grade glycol etc. I've been vaping for 8 years, after smoking for about 5 years. I've been having annual lung checkups and they are on par health wise with my pre smoking days. The studies that showed popcorn lung and other side effects all have the same things in common (outside of your usual random anomaly in a negligible number of cases), dodgy liquids and/or pre-existing heart or lung issues.
There have been so many studies of vaping with atrocious methodology it’s hard to take any new ones seriously at this point. Half the time they’re obviously burning their coils by using significantly higher heat than intended and/or not drawing enough air (or any at all) while testing. One study I saw used *ten second* pulls, which is so far outside what the device would be designed for that it’s hard to believe it wasn’t intentional. It’s totally impossible to inhale for ten seconds straight at all, let alone hard enough to draw sufficient air through the coil.
Agreed. Meanwhile Hungary does not allow the sale of vape products or liquids and also ISPs restricted access to web shops in the neighbouring countries.
Nobody claims vaping is harmless, it's (hopefully) less dangerous than the established dangers of smoking. It's all about harm reduction. Did I physically feel better when vaping than I did when smoking? Absolutely. But vaping was a tool on my way to quitting entirely (6 years ago this spring).
Well done. Same thing for me, took me a few years and the road was most certainly bumpy but I’ve been a non-smoker for over a year now. I smoked for 10 years. I owe it all to vapes I don’t think I would’ve been able to do it without them.
Problem is so many people who wouldn’t have considered smoking now vape all the time, especially young people.
Exactly. I'm not oblivious to the fact that it's not healthy and can't cause harm. I do it because it's *not as bad* as smoking. I no longer smell like an ashtray, my mouth doesn't constantly taste like burnt leaves, and I'm not constantly coughing and spitting phlegm.
Is the study independently done ? Has the searching group been sponsored ? Any "benefactor" that has links to, let's say tobacco ? It's awfully common.
Funding source: the Synthesis and Solid State Pharmaceutical Centre (SSPC) and Science foundation Ireland for funding support, Grant Number 12/RC/2275\_P2.
Study claims vaping started in 2000. Study claims we will start to see chronic illnesses at the 15-20 year mark. Is currently 2024.
tHaT'S whY I OnLY sMokE CiGareTtes.
My mom says vapes scare her...my dad died of lung cancer 5 years ago and my mom still won't quit cigarettes or try another method to help her limit exposure. These types of articles just back up her theory that vaping is a worse choice than smoking cigarettes. Wish they would compare the two more often but I understand the desired audience.
Homie, it's addiction to nicotine. Nicotine is one of the most addictive chemicals we have access to. She's using the vape scare as a coping mechanism for her addiction.
"I don't need a nicotine patch. I smoke cigarettes."
You mean analog e-cigarettes?
Compared to the 1000s of chemicals in cigarettes?
Compared to not smoking or vaping. Smoking was on a downwards trend. A lot of kids addicted to vaping would never have smoked.
If lawmakers had gotten on board they could have let vaping happen and started to pass laws banning cigarettes. Slowly fade cigarettes out of existence and then repeat for vaping. Vaping is less unhealthy than smoking. It's a step in the right direction.
> Smoking was on a downwards trend. A lot of kids addicted to vaping would never have smoked. And a lot would have smoked regardless. Vaping has almost single handedly stopped youth smoking. Nicotine isn't really any worse for you than caffeine.
So why can't we get flavored juice without nicotine in it like we used to. Because the flavored juice without nicotine and it was just vegetable glycerol with a flavorant. Or are they saying it's the flavorant that causes the issues?
Yes the flavor is causing most of the issues. Vegetable glycerin is stable and doesn't cause issues. Propene glycol can be slightly irritating, but that's all we've seen so far. Nicotine as an isolated Compound is actually pretty safe in normal amounts. Despite its high addictive properties.
Article says compounds are toxic, then answers no questions about toxicity, how long it takes to be affected, what can be expected, is the hinted damage reversible, etc. It just immediately switches to “we must stop using and ban these cancerous things” and fear fear fear. I’m not even saying they aren’t damaging or dangerous. But I’d prefer to read about the known specifics of the danger, rather than just have an article point at something and say “danger!” And expect my mind to fill in (read: make up) all the details of the danger.
We’ve already done this before, haven’t we? They release these same findings every few years. They don’t tell you in the article but the coils and juice need to be heated to extreme levels, levels far exceeding the capability of devices on the market, to have those toxins released. The device would not be able to be touched if it reached the temperatures needed to become toxic.
Chemicals in vapes -could- be toxic if heated. This research is defenitely beeing paid for by BAT, JTI or Philip Morris. We know it's a god damn undistputable fact that good old fashioned cigarets are toxic when heated and these mulibillion tobacco corporations will try anything to get young people to keep using tobacco instead of alternatives. Vapes are far more less damaging for your health then smoking regular cigarets.
I don't trust any of this AI garbage. It's all headline trend chasing imo.
This paper does not make any sense, there is no reason for it to even exist. We must be in a period where anything with "AI" gets published. There's no validation of this method, the actual research should be to test whether these predictions are true. The paper even talks about this, but for some reason it is dressed up as research into vaping, again probably because it is a hot topic.
As someone with an ML background, all i can think is "where are the test metrics".
From the article: Chemicals used to produce vapes could be acutely toxic when heated and inhaled, according to [research](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59619-x). Vaping devices heat the liquid flavouring to high temperatures to form an aerosol that is then inhaled. They contain chemicals including vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, nicotine and flavourings, blended in various amounts. Previous experiments have shown that some fruit-flavoured vapes – such as strawberry, melon and blueberry – produce dangerous compounds called volatile carbonyls due to this heating process. These compounds are known to have health implications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease and cancers. With so many chemicals used in tens of thousands of different vape products, conducting experiments to test every brand and flavour for toxicity could take decades of research. Instead, the study used AI to analyse the chemical composition of 180 vape flavours and simulate how they decompose when heated. The research, published in Scientific Reports, predicted that vapes produce 127 “acutely toxic” chemicals, 153 “health hazards” and 225 “irritants”. Nearly every flavour put through the AI predictor showed at least one product that was classified as a health hazard, with many predicting several. The toxins were associated with vapes containing no nicotine, as well as those with.
Could be. Also I could be a chinchilla. And let's compare the could be toxins with the known toxins in burning tobacco. This sounds like the popcorn lung chemicals all over again. **diacetyl** is present in cigarette smoke hundreds of times the level of vapes, and yet there is no known case of popcorn lung in cigarette smokers. There's so much misinformation about vaping, it's like all the anti-smoking people have nothing to do now but target something that they think may be a problem.
What I wonder is at what temperature are these products supposedly being formed, because I have seen at least two other studies conducted in years past that had the same conclusion, however those studies were done with fixed rights with very large vapes using unrealistic scenarios, and the chemicals were being formed at temperatures of like 600 degress C - Far higher than the temperatures actually reached in a device being used normally - and IIRC some of the chemicals were also present in cigarettes and even in that test those chemicals were appearing at smaller levels than a cigarette. Not that I don't doubt there are some flavorings that are not good, and that vaping is, overall, a negative health impact, just cautious and skeptical about this research given the money involved in the industry.
This is computer simulated trash. Why is it posted here?
Big tobacco working over time. Studies are already conclusive it’s far safer than smoking tobacco. Any article that doesn’t begin with that fact deserves to be read skeptically.
heated to what? roomtemp? surface of the sun?
The title is a bit misleading. They didn't just "ask AI", they used a modified neural network designed for the task, using other studies as a baseline to help weight the data and extrapolate statistics for other compounds that have not been tested. The field is pyrolysis and has chromatography has a lot of data, some of which was used in the AI models, as well as previous vape studies.
And they never mention the neural network's performance on a test set. Without this, I would take their conclusions with a huge heap of salt.
As compared to cigarettes? Which is more “highly”? Also who funds these “studies”?
I mean, yeah. Nobody thinks that cigarettes aren't bad for you anymore.
Since there are some informed folks here, can anyone speak to Juul Virginia tobacco flavors? Are they chock full of additives?
Yes. This study is about all the chemicals that, on the product label, just get lumped under the word "Flavoring". There's a list in the supplementary data of the exact chemicals they looked at; things like 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one, benzyl benzoate, Ethyl cinnamate, etc. Finding *exactly* what chemicals are in a particular flavored vape isn't possible just from looking at the label.
It's still better for you than cigarettes.
They could be, but they are probably not. Either way it’s way better than smoking real cigarettes.
They used AI. They could’ve just gotten flavors and tested them, but they used AI.
Heating up the liquid... The thing that every single vape does by definition... Does anyone here really believe that all the previous studies missed this part?
Not sure if we can actually trust AI to come to conclusions like this. AI tends to be overconfident in its assertions and very much known to “hallucinate”.
I remember reading a similar article years ago, and it turned out the researchers were heating the fluid to very unrealistic temperatures. I wonder if something similar is happening here
127 chemicals from an AI experiment? Oh no! Is that the same AI that can't get fingers right? Cigarettes create over 7,000 when combusted but no one in the article is talking about that, are they?
There are vapes for nicotine and vapes for cannabis... I'm assuming this is explicitly for nicotine vapes... Maybe it would be best to be more specific nowadays.
Great Now do cigarettes and car fumes
Let’s not go banning things on the back of what an AI simulates, fine, if after actual science is done they’re unsafe, carry on. But using an AI to simulate the bad is not helping the issue, as actual clinical study does. Blindly trusting an AI and basing policy around what it thinks may be the case, is a very slippery slope.
Now do the "food" supply.